- 12 -
that any tax liability would have been larger due to the interest
factor. In that regard, we reiterate that it was the huge spread
between the parties’ positions that may have protracted the
litigation and exacerbated the amount of the claimed fees and
costs. The Court is unable to reach the conclusion that the
number of hours billed was unreasonable. There is no per se rule
that would limit the amount of fees claimed to the amount in
controversy. Certainly, as a matter of good judgment and
practical economics, a litigant would ordinarily be reluctant to
spend more for attorney’s fees and costs than is at stake. In
that regard, however, the estates argue that it was respondent’s
approach to these cases and his unreasonable position that there
should be a nominal discount that protracted the proceedings and,
to some extent, pushed the fees closer to the amounts in dispute.
It is that very principle, the estates contend, that was the
basis and intent for the enactment of section 7430; i.e., to
reimburse a litigant’s fees and costs incurred in defending
against an unreasonable position.
Accordingly, with the exception of the need to reduce
claimed attorney’s fees to the statutory adjusted rate, we hold
that the estates’ claims for fees and costs are reasonable.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011